Blogcritics Author: Charles Signorile

SCHIP: What They Aren't Telling You

Charles Signorile — Thu, 4 Oct 2007 06:31:30 EDT

There is an obvious political agenda surrounding the SCHIP expansion, and it is a game politicians on both sides have been playing for years.
As expected, President Bush vetoed the children's health insurance bill today. Also as expected, this has brought an onslaught of attacks from the left, coupled with blatant lies to back them up. Senator Harry Reid, who is quickly moving my top ten list of useless politicians, called it a "heartless veto.""By vetoing a...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

The Problem With This Year's Debates

Charles Signorile — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:17:19 EDT

I didn’t have the “pleasure” of watching the debate tonight, I had something else which I felt deserved my attention more. In retrospect, now that I have read some of the questions which were asked by the American public, I wonder if there was anything less important than watching this debate. Let’s be honest, in all walks of life there are intelligent people and those who just take up space (no doubt living off of their entitlements). Both Democrats and Republicans have their fair share of constituents who are as sharp as a marble. My problem with tonights debate… actually with most debates so far this year, is the stupidity of the questions asked.If this was a live debate in which callers were selected at random and asked questions without the benefit of a pre-screening, I would say “fine, what can you do”. The fact that people were asked to submit their questions via You Tube, and some of these questions were actually asked is an insult to our country. No doubt anyone watching these “debates” from other countries were laughing hysterically over what the American people truly care about. Unfortunately for the Democrats, and our country as a whole, our politicians were naive enough to dignify these questions with an answer.To Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois: “Are you black enough”?How does Mr. Obama reply? Does he invoke Martin Luther King and state that he wishes to live in a country which judges people by the content of their heart not the color of their skin? No of course not.. that wouldn’t gain him any points with the African American community who wants nothing more than a Black president... regardless of his credentials. Mr. Obama decided to perpetuate a stereotype by replying “You know, when I’m catching a cab in Manhattan… in the past, I think I’ve given my credentials,”Well there you go America, Barack Obama is acceptable as President of the United States because he tried to catch a cab in Manhattan.Hillary Clinton was put in a position where she felt it necessary to answer the absurd question “Are you feminine enough?” Hillary, as opposed to invoking the women’s liberation movement which proudly exclaimed that women and men are equal... and still do to this day, decided to dignify the question by stating “I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman.”At least Hillary though was honest to a certain extent in that she could not run as anything other than a woman. If she were to run as a “man” then she could not run as the wife of Bill Clinton, in which case she would have no political platform to stand on.Interestingly enough, not one question on the immigration issue was brought up as far as I can tell (again, I did not see it live so I needed to go off others' commentaries and random video clips). If it is true that not ONE immigration question was asked, therein lies the problem. Immigration has been the second biggest issue this year (next to the Iraq war), and should have been on the top of the list in a true “debate”. Clinton and Obama went on the record this weekend advocating the legalization of illegals, but where do the other candidates stand on the issue?The fact that CNN ignored this issue is a sign of how partisan politics has truly become. The Republicans have Fox News lobbing out softball questions, while the Democrats have just about everything else. If moderators refuse to ask candidates the tough questions, what is the point of debate?A debate only occurs when a hot button issue arises in which candidates have differing opinions. Unless those questions are asked, the debate solves nothing. The only way voters will ever be able to decipher the truth on how candidates stand on the issue is to truly hold a bi partisan debate.I propose that the next Democratic debate has three chairpersons who offer questions to the candidates, two who are registered Democrats, and one who is Republican. For the Republican debate, obviously the same would apply, two Republicans, one Democrat offering the questions. Then finally we will know where the candidates stand on the important issues.Whether or not Obama is black enough, or Hillary is feminine enough only matters to the simple folk who base their vote on race, or sex. The majority of Americans want to vote for someone who has the same underlying beliefs that they do. So lets have the candidates inform America what they stand for!

Are All Crimes Created Equal?

Charles Signorile — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:20:28 EDT

Millions of people in this country are still relying solely on the mainstream media for their information. Wether it be, USA Today, the New York Times, or ABC News, people have a tendency to flock to the “respected” names in news to read up on what’s happening in our country. For the “big” stories, those news outlets do not disappoint, inundating us with so much information it is almost overwhelming.For example, on June 7, 1998 James Byrd Jr. was hitchhiking in Jasper, Texas when John William King, Lawrence Russell Brewer Jr. and Shawn Berry spotted him. The three white men chained Byrd, who is African American, to the back of their pickup and dragged him for miles. When Byrd’s decapitated body was found the next morning, nationwide outrage ensued and the media did their best to keep the public abreast to what was going on in Jasper. In the 5 months after Byrd’s murder, the NY Times ran 31 stories mentioning Byrd’s name, while USA Today ran 23. Truly an excellent job of reporting.Now the question has arisen though, are all crimes created equal? If you were to do a search at the New York Times for the name Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom, you would return 0 results. The reason this is relevant is because Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were a young white couple (aged 21 and 23 respectively), who were brutally raped and murdered by 4 black men back in January. The crime started as a carjacking, then escalated to much worse. According to the grand jury presentment Christian was raped vaginally, orally, and anally, and Newsom was raped anally. Within a few hours, Newsom was shot, his body wrapped in bedding, set afire and dumped alongside nearby railroad tracks. Christian remained alive for several more hours. She was raped and strangled, and her body was discarded in a trashcan.Kidnapping, sexual assault, murder, 46 charges in total listed in the 24 page indictment, and not so much as a paragraph from the New York Times or USA Today. This has led to plenty of speculation from conservatives as to the media’s selection of what is ‘newsworthy’. Michelle Malkin had this to say:“This case — an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs — doesn’t fit any political agenda,” she said. “It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants.” When one thinks back to the Duke rape case and the national attention it received, it is easy to see why Michelle Malkin and others would think these things. In the Duke case it was affluent white males who were accused of raping an African American stripper… just rape however, no brutalization, no murder, no dismemberment of a body. The story was plastered on the front page of every major newspaper for weeks before it was learned the charges were completely fabricated. Conservatives who have written about this have drawn the ire of those who do not believe murders of Christian and Newsom deserve national media attention. Recently a columnist names Leonard Pitts Jr. vocalized his opinion in an article titled Lunatic fringe focuses on ‘oppressed’ white people.Among other things he says:“It always amazes me when white people put on the victim hat. As in victim of racial oppression. By any measure — health, education, economics, employment — white Americans enjoy a superior standard of living. If that’s racial oppression, sign me up.”“Truth is, media ignore horrific crimes all the time. Space is limited and growing more so. Which means the story that catches fire usually has some element beyond gruesomeness to sell it. In the Duke case, it was class, privilege, sex AND race that did it.”“…let me add that I am likewise unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized: Cry me a river.”The author in his attempt to explain why this story did not receive national media coverage unwittingly proves the point of the conservatives. By arguing whites enjoy a “superior standard of living” and therefore cannot wear the ‘victim hat’, the author is showing his contempt for white America. If the individuals who committed this crime share his contempt for white America, then this could be considered a hate crime.He is right in one respect however, space is limited and the media cannot report on every story, and every crime across the country, even those which cross the racial barrier. According to a Department of Justices report, Homicide by race and offender of victim, for black offenders with white victims, the percentage of all homicides was 8.5 in 2004 while white offenders with black victims, the percentage of all homicides was only 3.5 percent in the same year. For the record, unless new evidence is presented which would prove otherwise, I do not feel this case should be prosecuted as a hate crime. I do feel however, because of the viciousness of the crime, more newspapers should have picked it up, if only to run 1 story.The fact remains that although black on white homicide occurs at more than double the rate of white on black homicide, the latter is more likely to receive national press. To Leonard J. Pitts Jr., I truly wish to cry you a river. Not because I feel “victimized” or “oppressed”, but because you do. Only in America can a nationally syndicated columnist, who has won the Pulitzer Prize claim oppression.

New Threat From Religion of Peace

Charles Signorile — Thu, 31 May 2007 04:22:55 EDT

During the Republican debate earlier this month, Ron Paul was vilified by the media and fellow Republicans because of his comments made about the attacks on September 11. After insinuating the attacks occurred due to American foreign policy, Dr. Paul said "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.Well Dr. Paul, let's "listen" to what they are saying now, so we can avoid upsetting them in the future as you have advocated:To see the video Click HereThe man in the video is Adam Yehiye Gadahn, who also goes by the name Azzam al-Amriki. Gadahn who is an American citizen currently under indictment for treason for aiding al-Qaeda, apparently is speaking on behalf of the terrorist group in the above video. His demands give us an insight as to what would be expected of our country in order to avoid any future terrorist attacks against our civilian population. "Pull every last one of your soldiers, spies, security advisors, trainers, attachés and so on out of every Muslim land from Afghanistan to Zanzibar"I suppose this would mean abandoning our embassies in those Countries as well. Even the most liberal of Americans must believe it would be a bad idea to remove all personnel from the Middle East. The intelligence gathered by these men and women is priceless. "Stop all support and aid, military, political, economic or otherwise for the 56 plus apostate regimes of the Muslim world and abandon them to their well deserved fait at the hands of the soldiers of Islam"I wonder what Amnesty International would say if we gave in to this demand? We pull all our troops out of the area, offering no military or humanitarian aid to the "56 plus apostate regimes", and sit back an watch them get slaughtered. "End all support moral, military, economic, political or otherwise to the bastard State of Israel and ban your citizens, Zionist Jews, Zionist Christians and the rest from traveling to occupied Palestine or settling there"This unfortunately is something a growing number of Americans believe is the real reason for the attacks on September 11. This goes back to the famous dictum "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it". "Cease all interference in the religion, society, politics and governance of the Muslim world and leave us alone to establish the Islamic Sura State which will unite the Muslims of Earth in truth and justice. A single word of American protest shall be silenced by a thousand Islamic bombs."This is interesting, he refers here to the "Islamic Sura State". The term Sura in Arabic means "something enclosed or surrounded by a fence or wall." I am sure quite a few Americans would offer to assist in building that wall! "Put an end to all forms of interference in the education curricula and information media of the Islamic world, and impose a blanket ban on all broadcast to our region, especially those designed to alter or destroy the faith, minds, morals, and values of our people."Basically what he is saying here is, stop showing our people how good you have it in America! No broadcasts of our news or television shows to the Islamic world would mean the people in that region would not be aware that women are not second class citizens, and it is not necessary to kill anyone who does not believe in your God. "Free all Muslim captives from your prisons, detention facilities, and concentration camps, regardless of wether they have been recipients of what you call a fair trial or not"Apparently it is not enough just to alter or foreign policy, we now have to alter our domestic policy. It is important to note, he is not only referring to those being detained at Guantanamo, he is demanding the release of all Muslims from our prisons. He then goes on to inform us that simply pulling our soldiers out of Iraq would not be enough to avoid a future attack. All of the above demands must be met in order to avoid experiencing "things which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11th".One thing needs to be clear here. The attacks of September 11 did not occur because of our presence in Iran, as Dr. Paul suggested, nor did it occur due to our support of Israel as some media figures have suggested. These attacks occurred because we allow our people certain freedoms, such as the freedom to choose which religion to follow. Islamic extremists have called for all Americans to convert to Islam or face the soldiers of Allah, and those soldiers as we are now aware do not follow the rules of war.For those of you still not convinced we are actively engaged in a war, please watch this video one more time. Pay close attention to the demands which must be met in order to avoid future conflicts with these extremists, along with the threats made for not meeting those demands, and ask yourself would the ends justify the means?

Congress Takes Action Against Rising Gas Prices

Charles Signorile — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:02:30 EDT

The U.S. House of Representatives, responding to citizen complaints about high gas prices, voted yesterday to pass the "Gas Tax Relief Act of 2007". In an effort to lower consumer burden during the summer driving months, Congress has rolled back the 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax on gasoline, and sent a strong message to the individual States whose gasoline taxes are as high as 33 cents per gallon to do the same. If the States were to follow the Federal Government's lead this could mean a reduction in gasoline prices by an average of 40 cents per gallon, with the higher taxed States saving as much as 51 cents per gallon. If you are wondering why you have not read about the "Gas Tax Relief Act of 2007" in the newspaper, the answer is simple. There is no such legislation being proposed in Congress. What the House of Representatives voted on yesterday was the "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007", or NOPEC. The bill which passed by a 345-72 vote, would revoke the sovereign immunity OPEC members currently enjoy from U.S. legal action and allow the Justice Department to sue them in U.S. courts. Rather than pass legislation which would have an immediate impact on American consumers, the House decided to pass legislation which would take years to show any results. Unfortunately, this legislation, if passed into law, may actually produce higher gasoline prices if OPEC decides to retaliate by lowering production. Approximately 40% of our country's oil is provided by OPEC members. It would not be a wise decision to make enemies of them by filing lawsuits in U.S. courts. As an alternative, Congress should be looking for ways to lower America's dependence on OPEC, either through alternative means of energy, or alternative sources of oil. For over 20 years the controversy over drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been ongoing, with several attempts to open the region for drilling defeated. In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush's National Energy Bill authorized drilling in ANWR, but a filibuster by Senate Democrats kept the measure from coming to a vote. In 1995, Republicans prepared to take up the battle again and included a provision for ANWR in the federal budget. President Bill Clinton vetoed the entire budget and expressed his intention to veto any other bill that would open ANWR to drilling. In 1998 a U.S Geological Survey estimated there to be at least 5.7 billion billion barrels of recoverable oil, with possibly as much as 16 billion barrels. If drilling were to take place in this region the influx of oil into the market place would cause prices to go down, effectively ending the "crisis". Congress has largely ignored alternative means of reducing consumer gas prices and opted for judicial action instead. Interestingly, the bill only refers to foreign States who attempt "to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product." Apparently, domestic States would be considered exempt from this legislation. Currently there are about a dozen States which have price controls on gasoline, not to stipulate a maximum price, but to set a minimum price. Recently, in Wisconsin, a gas station owner was threatened with a lawsuit from State regulators unless he raised his prices. The service station owner had offered a 2 cent per gallon discount to senior citizens. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture said those deals violate Wisconsin’s Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price. Rather than address solutions which Congress has direct control over, they have decided to do what most Americans do when they are unhappy. Sue!

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Charles Signorile — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:57:55 EDT

The Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortions today in a 5-4 vote. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush received immediate challenges. The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion. The argument that crushing a baby's skull is a "constitutional right" is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, and I am elated the Supreme Court rejected that notion. Hopefully this will be only the first step in a series of laws which will eventually do away with the abortion on demand society we currently live in. Planned Parenthood was obviously troubled by the decision with spokesperson Eve Gartner stating, "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Planned Parenthood, stating in her dissenting opinion, "Today's decision is alarming... [the ruling] refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion. Prior to this ruling, six Federal courts have said the law is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. I have read the Constitution many times, I have never seen any clause which even remotely implies the right to take an innocent life. So in order to understand why these Federal courts ruled as such, it is necessary to take a look at the Supreme Court case which invented the right. Abortion advocates claim their right to kill the unborn is protected by the Constitution, and as we all know, in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court did indeed say that: State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. There you have it. Apparently it is the Fourteenth Amendment which gives women this "right". So let's take a look at the 14th and see if we can find the "right" they refer to: ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It would appear to me that any state which allows abortions to occur would be depriving a person of life, and therefore would be violating the Fourteenth Amendment. But I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so what do I know? Let's see what those wiser than me had to say. Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Roe summed it up pretty good: Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe. To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.But that was a dissenting opinion, so let's take a look at the concurring side. Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion says: I do not read the Court’s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting Justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand. As you can see from Chief Justice Burger’s concurring opinion, when he ruled in favor of Roe, he did so under the presumption the most doctors are ethical, and would only perform these procedures if there were a medically viable reason for it. As organizations like Planned Parenthood and doctors like George Tiller have shown us, this is not the case! With more than one million abortions performed in this country annually, it can no longer be considered a medical procedure, it now must be considered an epidemic.

A Republic if You Can Keep It

Charles Signorile — Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:01:27 EDT

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin. Over 200 years later, Benjamin Franklin would be proud that the country he helped create has indeed kept the form of government he and the other founders laid out for us. From the election of George Washington as our first President until present day, our electoral process has not changed. Individuals from each State go to the ballot and cast a vote for their candidate of choice. Votes are tallied for that State and the candidate with the most votes in that State receives the electoral votes. Although there are some States in which the electoral votes are distributed by Congressional District and cast for candidates accordingly. That may be about to change. According to WallBuilders.com Senator Hillary Clinton has promised to introduce in the Senate a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Those of you living in populous States such as New York or California (I myself live in New York), may find this Amendment to be beneficial to you, it was not however, what our founding fathers intended. The idea behind abolishing the electoral college is due largely to the 2000 election, with many feeling Bush actually lost the election, and without an electoral college, a recount in Florida would not have been needed. If however the election were to be decided on a popular vote basis, not only would a recount in Florida have been necessary, it is very likely a recount in every state would have been necessary as well. The number of votes separating Gore from Bush amounted to one half of one percent of the votes, clearly Bush would have requested a recount nationwide if it were not for the electoral college. In that same election Gore carried only 676 counties, while Bush carried 2,436 counties. Geographically speaking, Bush had won in a landslide, however because large parts of our population are concentrated in certain States, Gore managed to win the popular vote. This begs the question, if the President were to be decided by popular vote alone, would voters in rural areas be completely ignored by the candidates? As Wallbuilders.com points out: Indeed, without the electoral college system, candidates would logically spend their campaign courting voters in the most populous urban areas such as Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, Washington, D. C., Miami, Seattle, etc., rather than visiting cities in more rural areas — cities like Wichita, Birmingham, Amarillo, Cheyenne, Springfield, Tulsa, etc. Additionally, since larger urban areas tend to be more liberal than the rest of the nation, presidential campaigns would therefore cater predominately to liberal interests. National Popular Vote Inc. is leading the charge in this debate, their purpose is "to study, analyze and educate the public regarding a proposal to provide for the nationwide popular election of the President." This group actually advocates bypassing a Constitutional amendment to alter our electoral process, and they are asking the States to do it on their own. Their proposal calls on states to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote count nationally. If enough states do that, the candidate with the most votes nationally would be guaranteed to win the election. The Washington Post reported Maryland is ready to do just that: The bill, which the Senate approved 29 to 17 yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide My advice to Maryland voters, stay home on election day. Your votes will no longer matter. The Maryland legislature has effectively nullified its residents votes with this bill. If a candidate were to receive enough votes nationwide he (or she) would receive all of Maryland's electoral votes, even if the voters of Maryland voted overwhelmingly for that persons opponent. The Washington Post also is reporting: "California lawmakers passed a version of the bill last year, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). This year, lawmakers in one chamber of the Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado legislatures have approved such a measure, but it has not yet made it through the other chamber, according to National Popular Vote Inc., the California-based group pushing the idea." Ironically the idea behind this "movement" is that certain States are ignored in Presidential elections. The outcome of this movement however will guarantee those States are ignored in the future! What Presidential candidate will feel it necessary to campaign in Maryland when they know they will get Maryland's electoral votes by winning more populous States such as New York, California and Texas? Those in favor of abolishing the electoral college feel a Democracy is a superior form of government to a republic. Our founding fathers (whom I consider substantially wiser than Hillary Clinton) adamantly disagreed. In fact, the Constitution guarantees a republic form of government. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"- Article IV Section 4 John Adams once said "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Over 200 years ago our founding fathers gave us a Republican form of Government, the question now is, can we keep it?

The Problem With Gallup Polls

Charles Signorile — Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:02:13 EDT

I was making my rounds through the blogsphere this morning and happened upon an article over at Daily Kos indicating it is the will of the American people to have troops withdrawn by the Fall of 2008. The author, intending to shift blame for the inevitable veto of the war spending bill squarely onto Bush's shoulders cites Gallop polls to show the bill, which narrowly passed through Congress, has the support of the American people.The problem with citing these Gallup polls however, is that if one reads into these polls they give a clear indication as to why they can not, and should not be trusted. By examining the USA Today Gallup poll several problems emerge. In order to examine these problems which arise from the poll, we must first ignore 2 important facts 1. The poll was only the opinion of 1007 adults (not necessarily 1007 voters)2. 429 of those polled described themselves as leaning Republican while 493 described themselves as leaning Democrat (indicating a 7% bias towards the Democrats).The reason it is important to ignore these facts, although I believe they do carry some weight in the outcome of the polls, is because these are facts which we cannot change. It is the unfortunate outcome of randomized polling. The answers which need to be analyzed are the ones which give an indication as to the knowledge of those polled.For example, when asked "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi", 19% stated they have never heard of her. Likewise when asked about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 18% replied they never heard of him. Most amazing however is that 8% have never even heard of John Edwards!The above numbers tell me that almost 1 in 5 individuals polled by USA today have little or no knowledge of American politics. Can we expect our President to dictate foreign policy based on the opinion of someone who has never heard of Nancy Pelosi? Looking deeper into the polls, we find that not only is a good-sized portion of these people ignorant to American politics, we find they do not care about stability in Iraq either. Although 60% of those questioned are in favor of setting a timetable for troop withdrawal no later than the fall of 2008, 53% of people also believe insurgents will step up attacks once the U.S. reduces the number of troops.According to this poll, a majority of people believe we should reduce the number of troops in Iraq, even though a majority of people believe a troop reduction will lead to an increase in attacks! The safety of soldiers left in Iraq after the troop reduction obviously was not of concern to some of these individuals.Regardless of the outcome of these polls however, I think it is important to note (again), the President is Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Congress does not have the authority to demand a troop reduction in Iraq, their only power is to cut funding. But they should think carefully about that because recent Gallup polls show 61% of Americans oppose denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

Cut and Run Not Congress's Call

Charles Signorile — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:03:18 EDT

Reaffirming Bin Laden's statement "America has not the will to fight. They are a paper tiger"; the U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to leave a definitive date for withdrawal in Iraq in the war spending bill. "We have to change course. Today's vote takes us a step closer," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). The terms "change course" and "new direction" have been the war cry (no pun intended) of the Democratic party since before the 2006 election. Although most of us do not disagree with the Democrats when they say the war has been mismanaged, many people in this country still believe a victory in Iraq is vital to national security.The Democratic leadership themselves have acknowledged the absurdity of setting a deadline for troop withdrawal, not so much in actual words as in their actions. In order to gain support for this bill the Democrats included billions of dollars in pork barrel spending, forcing Senators to decide if a vote for withdrawal was more important than additional funds for their State.Included in the bill: $3 million for funding for sugar cane (goes to one Hawaiian co-op).$20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah.$6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land.$2 million for the University of Vermont$1.5 billion for livestock production losses.$2.1 billion for crop production losses. Click here to see the full list of spendingIt is imperative for the Democrats' 2008 presidential campaign that Bush's war in Iraq is a complete and utter failure, and they are doing everything in their power to ensure exactly that. The Pentagon has declared they need the emergency funding by April 15th to avoid having to make cutbacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate will take a final vote before the Easter recess Thursday but is not expected to reconcile its version with the House bill until both chambers are in session April 16. At that point, President Bush will veto the bill, sending it back to the House to draft new legislation (enough support to overturn the veto seems highly unlikely). This will delay funding even longer.In passing this legislation, however, the Democrats would be ignoring one minor document. It's called the United States Constitution.The United States Constitution declares the President to be Commander In Chief of our armed forces, with ultimate responsibility for all tactical decisions resting on his shoulders. The framers of our Constitution were indeed wise men, knowing full well a war cannot be run by committee. Our system of checks and balances gives Congress the power to declare war, and provide for funding for that war, but the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to dictate tactical strategies such as dates for troop withdrawal.If the Democrats intend to prove they can lead our country they need to prove to the American people they have our best interests in mind. They should submit a simplified version of the spending bill to guarantee the Pentagon has the funds necessary to do their job.Pulling out of Iraq is not Congress's call!

Not a Bright Idea

Charles Signorile — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:48:21 EDT

For years our government has been regulating our actions in public areas. From organized prayers on public property, to religious symbols, even speech which may be construed as discriminatory have all been banned. The FCC determines what may or may not be said on television and radio, and the Department of Education determines what your children are taught in school. More and more, the "land of the free" is becoming the land of the regulated.A bill recently introduced in the House, H.R. 1547, would prohibit the sale of certain inefficient light bulbs, and require the development of a plan for increasing the use of more efficient light bulbs by consumers and businesses. Sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, this bill effectively would regulate the way Americans can light their own homes.As World Net Daily points out, this is not a new idea:"This follows action in the European Union, just weeks ago, to phase out incandescent bulbs within two to three years. Australia has taken similar action. Canada is well on the way to a ban. Similar legislation has already been introduced in California Legislature. But guess where the drive originated? Fidel Castro started the trend in Communist Cuba two years ago. His buddy in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, beat the rest of the West to the punch by emulating his hero and inspiration in Havana." The alternative to incandescent bulbs would be fluorescent bulbs. As World Net Daily points out however, they are not without their own problems:"They contain the deadly pollutant mercury. You can't just throw them in your garbage can when they burn out or they will break and contaminate land and water. Instead, you'll find out after this switch is mandated that you have to take the dead bulbs to hazardous-waste sites. Either that, or expensive new recycling programs will have to be instituted. In all likelihood, they will involve gasoline-burning trucks rumbling through your neighborhood and highly trained hazardous-materials teams."In no time, it will be a criminal offense for you to throw away light bulbs in your garbage can – something you routinely do safely with those obsolete incandescents. Yet that may not be the only problem with fluorescent lights. Studies have linked them with depression, suicide rates, skin cancer, anxiety, sleep disorders, attention-deficit disorders, electro-magnetic pollution, headaches, eye strain and DNA damage from radiation. The author Joseph Farah goes on to point out he is unsure of the accuracy of those studies. However I do not feel that accuracy is relevant at this point. What is relevant is whether we as a country want elected officials regulating something as basic as the way we light our homes. Our country was founded on the free market system, with the principle that the products deemed to be best for the consumer are purchased, while other products simply disappear from the market due to lack of demand. The fact our Government feels the need to prohibit the sale of certain inefficient light bulbs is proof enough there is a consumer demand for those bulbs.On a personal note, I only use incandescent bulbs in my own home; I prefer the light they emit over that of a fluorescent bulb. A product's efficiency is not judged solely on the power it uses, but also on the result it produces. If the Government wants to rid us of those pesky "inefficient" light bulbs, maybe they should consider offering incentives to businesses which can design a new bulb which operates more efficiently, while producing the same results. Government regulation is not a bright idea.